World Energy Outlook 2013 – What it doesn’t say
Posted on 12 november 2013      Lars Boelen

Today the International Energy Agency delivered its World Energy Outlook, edition 2013. One picture says more than a thousand words, they must have been thinking, because we get loads of Powerpoint sheets and pictures. All this work just to report that it’s business as usual, although there are some issues requiring our attention.

The report itself is available for €120, even though all the IEA’s work is payed by us, the tax payers. I will leave this shameful practice for what it is, because there is more important ranting to do. On page 5 of the press information kitt we find:
http://stormglas.files.wordpress.com/2013/11/20131112-173623.jpg
... there is a growing consensus that something needs to done about the rising (sea) temperatures. The world community seems to agree that we need to have some sort of “carbon budget” that we must not exceed in order to prevent temperatures from rising 2 degrees above pre-industrial levels. The picture above tells this story.

“Nice pie chart”, I thought. But than I looked again and saw this “1750-2011″ label. Wait a minute! Is this pie chart really showing all the carbon ever used since James Watt invented the steam engine?Wow! The yellow slice is all the carbon that “we” will use between now and 2035, it’s our “budget”. The other slices are all the carbon used in history PLUS all the carbon ever to be used by mankind after 2035. I think that that story needs more detail than a three slice pie chart. I created the graph below with data from Carbon Dioxide Information Analyses Center:
http://stormglas.files.wordpress.com/2013/11/20131116-001801.jpg

(Reduction of CO2 emissions by 0.5% per year after 2012; 1/12 of CO2 budget remaining for all future generations.)

Inconvenient isn’t it? More than half of all the carbon dioxide mankind will ever emit will be from the generation now alive. All the cars, coal plants, holiday trips to the tropics, summer air conditioning, just-in-time production schemes, warehouse on wheels invented in the 70′s-80′s-90′s are using 2/3 of all fossil energy ever to be used by mankind. That is our generation doing this, we created this mess, we signed the climate contract with the planet blindfolded, we accepted the consequences.

The contract says we will leave as much fossil fuel (for heating homes, cooking and maybe even some driving) to our children as our (grand) parents used in the 50′s and 60′s of the last century.

I think that the whole WEO report can be binned and replaced with just one line of text:

Stop burning fossil fuels now!

Isn’t it a reassuring idea that our governments are using the WEO-report as a primary source for energy (let alone climate) policy decisions? Give your kids a good hug tonight, it may be all the warmth they get in the rest of their lives.

Ps. As Manjana Milkoreit (@ManjanaM) pointed out, the IPCC has calculated that our generation will actually burn ALL the remaining carbon budget before 2035, so “My” graph is highly optimistic, in leaving something for our kids and grandchildren.

Interesting you brought up JIT.. a perfect illustration of jevons paradox!

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Nov 28^th, 2013 at 10:30pm:

Interesting you brought up JIT.. a perfect illustration of jevons paradox!

Or not.
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2011/02/16/207532/debunking-jevons-paradox-jim-barrett/:
Quote:

The “Jevons paradox,” asserts that increasing “the efficiency with which a resource is used tends to increase (rather than decrease) the rate of consumption of that resource.”  It is mostly if not entirely bunk, as the scientific literature and leading experts have demonstrated many times (see “Efficiency lives “” the rebound effect, not so much“). But it lingers on in part because it is one of those quirky, ill-defined contrarian notions that the media can’t get enough of and in part because those who oppose clean energy, often for bizarre ideological reasons, keep pushing it.

JIT economises on capital invested in inventory by keeping inventories as low as possible. It relies on a supply chain that can create and deliver as required (hence, "Just In Time"). That entails many small deliveries, which is more energy-intensive than fewer, larger deliveries. As the cost of energy rises, the savings in invested capital are eroded.

I think what DRAH is talking about is the fact that as we increase the use of renewables worldwide, it doesn't automatically decrease the proportion of fossil fuel used for energy, because the overall demand goes up.

You can also look at Jevons Paradox from the  Environmental Accounting perspective.

Bit of a Dark Horse.  ;)

Jevon's paradox is not a good or a bad thing.

It was interesting # had a reference saying conservatives were trying to use it to push a barrel, lol, because then he went on to show how JIT relied on a supply chain of ever-ready flowing energy,.. In today's paradigm meaning fossil fuels.

Imagine, Mandela believing in a dream like style, that JIT could be supported with renewable energy. Sure that is a pseudo-lateral thought and I'm not by any stretch saying it is a train worth pursuing: my mo is simply to say that JIT thinking represents an embarrassment of riches,.... Riches that are non-renewable.

Hands up who wants me to recite my poem, !!again, about 'The Merchants Wheel' by Les Murray???!

.....please  ;) :D :D

muso wrote on Nov 30^th, 2013 at 2:18pm:

I think what DRAH is talking about is the fact that as we increase the use of renewables worldwide, it doesn't automatically decrease the proportion of fossil fuel used for energy, because the overall demand goes up. You can also look at Jevons Paradox from the  Environmental Accounting perspective. Bit of a Dark Horse.  ;)

Jevon's paradox simply says we learn to use more: correct! JIT is just an example of this embarrassment of riches- non renewable riches at this point in time.

The discussion about the competitive manufacting tool called JIT is very very very central to the worlds energy dilemma!

Well done # !!!